Hacking Wall Street: Reconceptualizing Insider Trading Law for Computer Hacking and Trading Schemes

K. Geisler
{"title":"Hacking Wall Street: Reconceptualizing Insider Trading Law for Computer Hacking and Trading Schemes","authors":"K. Geisler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3221987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores how insider trading law addresses computer hackers who employ cyberattacks in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Current securities law is ill-equipped to deal with such hackers because, unlike the typical defendants in insider trading cases, hackers owe no fiduciary duty to shareholders and no duty of confidentiality to insiders that provide material non-public information. In order to bring hacker-traders within the ambit of federal securities law, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) developed a novel theory of liability that treats hacking and trading as a form of deception in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. However, the viability of the SEC’s theory remains to be seen as only one decision has endorsed it—SEC v. Dorozhko, 574 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2009). This paper argues that, from a normative perspective, the Second Circuit correctly expanded Section 10(b) to hacking and trading. However, this paper takes issue with the Second Circuit's proposition that hacking amounts to deception only when the hacker misrepresents his or her “identity in order to gain access to information that is otherwise off limits, and then steal[s] that information” for purposes of securities trading. \n \nCurrently, there is little scholarship that thoroughly explores the potential for hackers to use innovative cyberattacks in order to avoid liability for securities fraud. This paper adds to the existing literature by arguing that even if the judiciary were to adopt the SEC’s reconceptualization of insider trading, it is unlikely that the theory would apply to certain sophisticated cybersecurity schemes—such as informed cyber-trading, whereby investors trade “on the basis of advanced knowledge of a cybersecurity breach.” In addition, it is unlikely that Dorozhko would apply to schemes in which a group of hackers short a corporation’s stock and then initiate a cyberattack, such as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, in order to cause a decline in the stock price. Such conduct would not amount to \"deceptive hacking\" under Dorozhko because even though the hackers masqueraded their identities, they did not do so in order to obtain the type of confidential information typically at issue in illegal insider trading schemes.","PeriodicalId":376821,"journal":{"name":"White Collar Crime eJournal","volume":"242 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"White Collar Crime eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3221987","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper explores how insider trading law addresses computer hackers who employ cyberattacks in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Current securities law is ill-equipped to deal with such hackers because, unlike the typical defendants in insider trading cases, hackers owe no fiduciary duty to shareholders and no duty of confidentiality to insiders that provide material non-public information. In order to bring hacker-traders within the ambit of federal securities law, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) developed a novel theory of liability that treats hacking and trading as a form of deception in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. However, the viability of the SEC’s theory remains to be seen as only one decision has endorsed it—SEC v. Dorozhko, 574 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2009). This paper argues that, from a normative perspective, the Second Circuit correctly expanded Section 10(b) to hacking and trading. However, this paper takes issue with the Second Circuit's proposition that hacking amounts to deception only when the hacker misrepresents his or her “identity in order to gain access to information that is otherwise off limits, and then steal[s] that information” for purposes of securities trading. Currently, there is little scholarship that thoroughly explores the potential for hackers to use innovative cyberattacks in order to avoid liability for securities fraud. This paper adds to the existing literature by arguing that even if the judiciary were to adopt the SEC’s reconceptualization of insider trading, it is unlikely that the theory would apply to certain sophisticated cybersecurity schemes—such as informed cyber-trading, whereby investors trade “on the basis of advanced knowledge of a cybersecurity breach.” In addition, it is unlikely that Dorozhko would apply to schemes in which a group of hackers short a corporation’s stock and then initiate a cyberattack, such as a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack, in order to cause a decline in the stock price. Such conduct would not amount to "deceptive hacking" under Dorozhko because even though the hackers masqueraded their identities, they did not do so in order to obtain the type of confidential information typically at issue in illegal insider trading schemes.
黑客华尔街:重新定义计算机黑客和交易计划的内幕交易法
本文探讨了内幕交易法如何解决计算机黑客在购买或出售证券时使用网络攻击。现行的证券法不足以对付这类黑客,因为与内幕交易案件中典型的被告不同,黑客对股东没有信托义务,对提供重要非公开信息的内部人士也没有保密义务。为了将黑客交易者纳入联邦证券法的管辖范围,美国证券交易委员会(SEC)开发了一种新的责任理论,将黑客和交易视为一种欺骗形式,违反了1934年《证券交易法》第10(b)条。然而,SEC理论的可行性仍有待观察,因为只有一个判决认可了SEC诉Dorozhko案,574 F.3d . 42 (2d Cir. 2009)。本文认为,从规范的角度来看,第二巡回法院正确地将第10(b)条扩展到黑客和交易。然而,本文对第二巡回法院的主张提出了质疑,即黑客行为只有在黑客歪曲他或她的“身份以获得其他禁止的信息,然后窃取该信息”以进行证券交易时才构成欺骗。目前,很少有学术研究深入探讨黑客利用创新网络攻击的可能性,以避免证券欺诈的责任。这篇论文补充了现有的文献,认为即使司法部门采用SEC对内幕交易的重新概念化,该理论也不太可能适用于某些复杂的网络安全计划——比如知情的网络交易,即投资者“基于对网络安全漏洞的先进知识”进行交易。此外,Dorozhko不太可能适用于一群黑客做空一家公司的股票,然后发起网络攻击,如分布式拒绝服务(DDoS)攻击,以导致股价下跌的计划。根据Dorozhko的说法,这种行为不构成“欺骗性黑客”,因为即使黑客伪装了自己的身份,他们这样做也不是为了获得非法内幕交易计划中典型的机密信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信